Biomechanical Effects of Using a Passive Exoskeleton for the Upper Limb in Industrial Manufacturing Activities: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the biomechanical impact of a passive Arm-Support Exoskeleton (ASE) on workers in wool textile processing. Eight workers, equipped with surface electrodes for electromyography (EMG) recording, performed three industrial tasks, with and without the exoskeleton. All tasks were performed in an upright stance involving repetitive upper limbs actions and overhead work, each presenting different physical demands in terms of cycle duration, load handling and percentage of cycle time with shoulder flexion over 80°. The use of ASE consistently lowered muscle activity in the anterior and medial deltoid compared to the free condition (reduction in signal Root Mean Square (RMS) -21.6% and -13.6%, respectively), while no difference was found for the Erector Spinae Longissimus (ESL) muscle. All workers reported complete satisfaction with the ASE effectiveness as rated on Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST), and 62% of the subjects rated the usability score as very high (>80 System Usability Scale (SUS)). The reduction in shoulder flexor muscle activity during the performance of industrial tasks is not correlated to the level of ergonomic risk involved. This preliminary study affirms the potential adoption of ASE as support for repetitive activities in wool textile processing, emphasizing its efficacy in reducing shoulder muscle activity. Positive worker acceptance and intention to use ASE supports its broader adoption as a preventive tool in the occupational sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".